William Perkins' Preaching Ministry (Part 6)

Whereas parts 3-5 focused on William Perkins Precondition to preaching sermons, the series will now focus on his Preparation for preaching sermons.

William Perkins’ Preparation for Preaching Sermons

Preparation 1: Method of Interpreting Scripture

William Perkins believes that in the exercise of interpreting the Bible, the duty of the interpreter is to exegete its single and natural sense, that is, the literal intent, which is the only legitimate sense of the Bible. However, his primary suggestions for interpreting Scripture are not methods to discover that single sense. Rather, his principal emphasis is on the human interpreter’s need to subordinate himself to the chief interpreter, that is, the Holy Spirit. His reasoning is simple: “The one who makes the law is the best and the highest interpreter of it."

Perkins’ other primary suggestion for interpreting Scripture is an emphasis on custom, a custom of vigilant private study (see Dan 9:2; 1 Tim 4:13; 1 Pet 1:10). He advises a five-stage strategy that must be applied in the preacher’s study. First, he is to fixate in his mind the sum and substance of biblical doctrine. Second, he is to read the Bible employing the grammatical, rhetorical and logical analysis, with other ancillary studies. He recommends that the preacher first read the epistle of Romans and the Gospel of John for they are keys that help one to comprehend the entire NT. Afterwards, Psalms and the doctrinal books of the OT are to be read, followed by Isaiah and the prophetic books, and finally Genesis and the historical books. Third, he is to consult ancient Christian writers from the past in order to combat both modern and revived heresies. Fourth, he is to jot down anything worthwhile noting for possible use in the future. Fifth, and most importantly, he is to earnestly pray to God for enablement in order to grasp the scriptures (Ps 119:18; Rev 3:18).

As far as interpretation methods are concerned, Perkins first advocates the use of the analogia fidei, that is, the clearer parts of Scripture the interpreter ought to turn to when he comes across a problematic verse or passage. Peculiar to his own approach, he includes the Apostles’ Creed as part of the analogy. Schaefer explains why Perkins may have adopted this practice:

"While such a use of tradition within a sola Scriptura framework might seem odd at first to a modern evangelical, it actually fits the standard sixteenth-century way of explaining the final normativeness of Scripture. To the sixteenth-century Reformed mind, the interpreter never stands alone but rather embraces a Trinitarian and redemptive reading as the matrix in which sound understanding arises. Such reflection in no way denudes the final authority of Scripture in matters of faith and practice, they claimed, because all such creedal expressions and teachings of humans finally must come under the searchlight of Scripture as final and only infallible authority. Human teaching derives authority only secondarily as both the individual exegete and the church catholic hold to the sure testimony of Scripture with humble and prayerful commitment."

So, for Perkins, analogia fidei is not necessarily limited to Scripture alone but all teachings accurately derived from Scripture.

Perkins also advocates the use of what he calls the “comparison with other passages” method. This interpretive method is simply an exercise of comparing different passages with one another in order that their meanings may become clearer. For example, Perkins uses Acts 9:22 to argue that Saul utilizes this method by “proving (i.e. by comparing one thing with another) that this Jesus is the Christ.” He advises that this method be applied either by comparing a statement in a context with another context where it emerges, whether the statement is altered or not (see table 2) or by comparing a context with another context, whether they are similar or dissimilar (see table 3). Tables 2 and 3 provide examples gathered from Perkins’ The Art of Prophesying.

Table 2. William Perkins’ “Comparison with Other Passages” Interpretive Method 1: When Comparing a Statement in a Context with the Same Statement in Another Context

Scenario & Example #1
Comparing a statement in one context with another context where it emerges unaltered (e.g., Isa 6:10 with Matt 13:14; Mk 4;12; Lk 8:10; Jn 12:40; Acts 28:27; Rom 11:8)

Scenario & Example #2
1. For exposition: Gen 13:15 and Gal 3:1

2. To clarify: Mic 5:2 and Matt 2:6

3. To limit to original sense: Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:5

4. For application/type and fulfillment: Jon 1:17 and Matt 12:40
5. For brevity: Zech 9:9 with Matt 2:15 (for brevity)

Table 3. William Perkins’ “Comparison with Other Passages” Interpretive Method 2: When Comparing a Context with Another Context, Whether Similar or Dissimilar
(Note that the similar ones agree either in phraseology or sense)

Scenario & Example #1

Comparing a context with another context with similar phraesology (Greek and Hebrew concordances are helpful here) (Gen 28:12 and Jn 1:51)

Scenario & Example #2

Comparing a context with another context with similar sense (similar meaning with the comparison of a general principle and an illustration of that principle) (Pro 28:13 and Ps 32:3-4)

Scenario & Example #3

Comparing a context with another context with dissimilar phraeseology or sense (no agreement in meaning) (Zech 11:13 and Matt 27:9; Rom 3:28 and Jas 2:24)

Another interpretive method Perkins advocates is what he calls “the circumstances of the particular passage” method. The purpose of this method is to clarify the passage before getting deeper into the passage. This is accomplished by asking basic questions: Who is writing? Who is speaking? Who is receiving? Who is listening? What occasion is this? What time is it? Where is it? What happened before? What happens after? etc. This is an elementary yet an essential interpretive principle and it is tantamount to what is known today as the process of observation in hermeneutics.

Perkins also deals with the interpreter’s need to discern the nature of a given passage. He explains that while there are analogical and plain passages that are consistent with the analogia fidei and with the scriptures, there are those that are not so easily identifiable. He calls these the “cryptical and hidden” or “difficult and dark” passages. For such he suggests that if the natural interpretation of a phrase disagree with the analogia fidei or the perspicuous parts of Scripture, it is obviously incorrect and the correct interpretation still needs to be sought. Schaefer implies that such was not problematic for Perkins since Reformed theologians understood that “perspicuity never meant that all places plainly expressed their meaning but rather that the basic teachings on God and redemption could be grasped clearly.”

Perkins also provides numerous linguistic helps to aid the preacher in his Bible interpretation, but they do not need to be mentioned here. All in all, he gave the primary of place to the guiding work of the Holy Spirit and the necessity of private study for achieving proper Scripture interpretation. He advocates the analogia fidei, the “compare with other passages,” and the “the circumstances of the particular passage” interpretive methods. He also acknowledges that God’s Word is both apparent and yet enigmatic, but did not question its authenticity whatsoever. This is his method of interpretation, simple on paper yet arduous when applied.

Notes:

• Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, 26.
• Ibid., 23-25.
• Schaefer, 45.
• Ibid., 45.
• Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, 27.
• Ibid., 27-29.
• Ibid., 27.
• The Workers of That Famous and VVorthy Minister of Christ in the Vniversitie of Cambridge, M. VVilliam Perkins, 654.
• Schaefer, 46.
• Ibid., 46.